There is no law of adoption in Scotland; Bell's Diet.; nor in England. In the latter country any renunciation by parents of their legal rights and liabilities is a mere empty form ; [1901] 2 K. B. 385 ; 3 M. & G. 547.
In the United States, adoption exists only by statute; In re Thorne, 155 N. Y. 140, 49 N. E. 661; Ballard v. Ward, 89 Pa. 358. One of the first states to introduce it was Mas sachusetts in 1851; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 37 Am. Rep. 321. Its object is to change the succession of property and to create re lations of paternity and affiliation not be existing; Morrison v. Sessions' Estate, 70 Mich. 297, 38 N. W. 249, 14 Am. St. Rep. 500. In Louisiana it was abolished by the Code of 1808, art. 35, p. 50. See Vidal v. Commagdre, 13 La. Ann. 517, but the right has since been restored ; Civ. Code 1870, Art. 214. In Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, 44 S. W. 761, 39 L. R. A. 748, 65 Am. St. Rep. 635, it was said to exist in every state. In many of the continental states of Europe it is still permitted under various restric. tions.
Adoption is never sustained by mere pre sumption ; Sackman v. Campbell, 10 Wash. 533, 39 Pac. 145 ; In re Romero, 75 Cal. 379, 17 Pac. 434 ; Henry v. Taylor, 16 S. D. 424, 93 N. W. 641; even though the child had been taken from an asylum at the age of seven, given the name of the people with whom he lived and treated by them as a son until majority ; In re Huyck, 49 Misc. 391, 99 N. Y. Supp. 502; and where the meth od of adoption is provided by statute, it can be done in no other way ; Taylor v. Deseve, 81 Tex. 246, 16 S. W. 1008 ; Foley v. Foley, 61 Ill. App. 577. There must be a substan= tial compliance with all statutory require ments ; Smith v. Allen, 161 N. Y. 478, 55 N. E. 1056; Bresser v. Saarman, 112 Ia. 720, 84 N. W. 920.
A husband and wife may adopt a child jointly; Markover v. Krauss, 132 Ind. 294, 31 N. E. 1047, 17 L. R. A. 806 (but not if the husband be insane; Watts v. Dull, 184 Ill. 86, 56 N. E. 303, 75 Am. St. Rep. 141); or an unmarried person of suitable age; Krug v. Davis, 87 Ind. 590. The mere fact that one is in the senile age of life will not render him incompetent to adopt one in the prime and vigor of life ; Collamore v. Learned, 171
Mass. 99, 50 N. E. 518. It is held that a non resident may not adopt a child ; Knight v. Gallaway, 42 Wash. 413, 85 Pac. 21. An adult may be an adopted child ; Sheffield v. Franklin, 151 Ala. 492, 44 South. 373, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 884, 125 Am. St. Rep. 37, 15 Ann. Cas. 90 ; In re Moran's Estate, 151. Mo. 555, 52 S. W. 377; Succession of Caldwell, 114 La. 195, 38 South. 140, 108 Am. St. Rep. 341; Markover v. Krauss, 132 Ind. 294, 31 N. E. 1047, 17 L. R. A. 806; Collamore v. Learned, 171 Mass. 99, 50 N. E. 518 ; but see contra; Petition of Moore, 14 R. I. 38 ; Wil liams v. Knight, 18 R. I. 333, 27 Atl. 210. Where the word "child" was used, the stat ute was held not to include an adult.
Usually the consent of the natural parents is required; Hopkins v. Antrobus, 120 Ia. 21, 94 N. W. 251; In re Estate of McCormick, 108 Wis. 234, 84 N. W. 148, 81 Am. St. Rep. 890 ; Succession of Vollmer, 40 La. Ann. 593, 4 South. 254; Luppie v. Winans, 37 N. J. Eq. 245 ; In re Bastin, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 570 ; and in some states the consent of the child, when he is above a certain age ; In re John son, 98 Cal. 531, 33 Pac. 460, 21 L. R. A. 380 ; Morrison v. Sessions' Estate, 70 Mich. 297, 38 N. W. 249, 14 Am. St. Rep. 500.
If the child be a foundling, the parents have no authority over it and the situation is as if the parents were dead ; Succession of Dupre, 116 La. 1090, 41 South. 324. A charitable society which maintains and cares for a child may consent to its adoption; Booth v. Van Allen, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 401; and a probate court may appoint a guardian ad litem with power to give or withhold con sent to adoption, where the parents are un known and there is no guardian; In re Edds, 137 Mass. 346. To constitute abandonment there must be some act on the part of the parent evincing a settled purpose to forego all parental duties ; Winans v. Luppie, 47 N. J. Eq. 302, 20 Atl. 969.
If the court be satisfied that the proceed ings are for his benefit, the consent of a minor will be presumed; Morrison v. Ses sions' Estate, 70 Mich. 297, 38 N. W. 249, 19 Am. St. Rep. 500.